marvy

50 ms·

451.
by marvy 11y ago
I don't know ML, but I really do wish Python had this feature. The only problem I see is that this makes it hard to refer to a function without calling it (see below). How does ML solve this? def g(): return 5 assert g() ==
452.
by marvy 11y ago
Actually, he prefers the old syntax. The new syntax is there because he got swayed by practical considerations. For instance, back in July 2000, there was this: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0214/ Whe
453.
by marvy 11y ago
Like what C did with bool? Ick. Gross. Ugly. Me no like. I understand why they did that in this case: by the time they got around to fixing the lack of bool, they had to work around everyone else's workarounds! But that was an ex
454.
by marvy 11y ago
ok, you got me there
455.
by marvy 11y ago
Interesting point, but there's a potentially important, albeit somewhat subtle difference. Google collects data which they claim nobody will ever look at. The reason they collect lots of data is so that machines can look at all of it
456.
by marvy 11y ago
Sure you can do that, but strcspn only found the newline, it didn't delete it. After all, you can also do foo[strlen(foo)-1] = 0; But I don't think anyone would say strlen modifies the string.
457.
by marvy 11y ago
Don't write things like that, people might believe you. That is not at all what it does. http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstring/strcspn/
458.
by marvy 11y ago
For what it's worth, that page gives Dropbox and Apple the same score. (5/5: 1 point on each of 5 questions.) If you find this surprising, check out their evaluation criteria; they might not be the same as yours. I find the 5th
459.
by marvy 11y ago
Me neither! Here's another cool macro trick: http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2012/01/24/higher-order-ma...
460.
by marvy 11y ago
What is the question?
461.
by marvy 11y ago
I think the case for a collective consciousness for humanity is much too weak. An insect colony does way better. At least most individual insects tend to act toward the common good, rather than waging war on other insects in the same colo
462.
by marvy 11y ago
No way, I did not mean to imply I thought that mice do that. But I think that's setting the bar too high. How often does the average person ask themselves such questions after all? I think four year olds are conscious, and yet I dou
463.
by marvy 11y ago
What makes you so sure mice aren't conscious? Insects probably are not, I have no strong opinion on mice, but dolphins almost definitely are.
464.
by marvy 11y ago
lsc: your comment is marked [dead].
465.
by marvy 11y ago
That sounds plausible. I'm curious how you tested this. Do you have a FAT-formatted disk to play with, or did you do this in a VM, or...?
466.
by marvy 11y ago
Request for benchmarks: I'd like to see what effect this has on, say, WinXP boot time, or maybe some database benchmark. In fact, there's no need to get so fancy. Let's see how much this slows down computing a file's c
467.
by marvy 11y ago
> What if two functions [...] have the same name? Presumably, the compiler never sees deadcode.c. Or did I misunderstand the question?
468.
by marvy 11y ago
> so if the observed p-value is ~0.05 (or any other value larger than 1/2^n) then it's for sure a false positive (because there will be at least one occurrence of tails). Good point! I didn't think of that. > Ok, enoug
469.
by marvy 11y ago
Ok, so the pretty result is mostly arbitrary. Fair enough. Re: false negatives... you seem to be living in a world of bell curves, or at least a mostly continuous world. I can easily make (very contrived) experiments where false negative
470.
by marvy 11y ago
I don't know R, but I found a few sites that happily run R code for me. I find the shape of that curve somehow pretty. 29% clearly can't be a hard bound, since we can get 4.8% by assuming no false negatives. I just wish I under
471.
by marvy 11y ago
I think I'm still missing something here. In particular, I'm still not getting 29% as a lower bound. I'm getting around 20%. If we compare mu=0 with mu=1.64, the probability density at x=1.64 is roughly 0.1 and 0.4, respec
472.
by marvy 11y ago
thanks!
473.
by marvy 11y ago
First of all, thank you for responding, I expected that no one would. Second of all, you point out that "no false negatives" is not always realistic. Fair enough. That means that 4.8% need not be the right answer. But at least
474.
by marvy 11y ago
Considering what Win10 looks like, maybe someone listened! Mission accomplished?
475.
by marvy 11y ago
I'm probably commenting too late to get my question answered, but here goes: the article has a pretty picture where they show how likely your p-values will mislead you depending on how likely the null hypothesis is. For instance, they
476.
by marvy 11y ago
If you start reading at "scratch is probably the answer", there are no politics past that point. Hope that helps.
477.
by marvy 11y ago
Just check if you already have them installed or not
478.
by marvy 11y ago
If you have DSL, the modem and the router are the same box, so if you want your own, you have to throw out the one the ISP gave you, and configure yours by yourself. In practice, I bet you could just call up the ISP if you're having t
479.
by marvy 11y ago
Thank you!
480.
by marvy 11y ago
Why would they take that away? That seems like the most useful feature a browser could offer. Does anyone know what mobile browsers do support reflow? I'd switch to one without hesitation if it did.

More ›